Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

09/04/03 1 ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions.

There are copies: 1
09/04/03 1 ITRS 2005 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "09/04/03 1 ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions."— Presentation transcript:

1 09/04/03 1 ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions

2 09/04/03 2 AMHS Backup Outline 1.ContributorsPage 3 2.How Metrics were SelectedPage 4 3.Material Handling Technology Requirements TablePage 5 4.Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to RealityPage 6 5.Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology ReqsPg System Throughput Requirementspages Reliabilitypages Hot Lot Delivery TimePages Delivery TimePages Potential Solution OptionsPg Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS)Pages Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3 rd Party LP/BufferPages Integrated Flow and ControlPages Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track StoragePages Inert Gas Purging of FOUPsPages Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced ConstraintsPages Potential Research TopicsPg 68-69

3 09/04/03 3 AMHS Contributors Will Perakis, Asyst Joe Reiss, Asyst Thomas Mariano, Brooks Neil Fisher, SK Daifuku Dan Stevens, Hirata Doug Oler, Hirata Scott Pugh, Hirata Larry Hennessy, IDC Adrian Pyke, Middlesex Ron Denison, Murata Chung Soo Han, AMD Detlev Glueer, AMD Marlin Shopbell, SemaTech Dave Miller, IBM Melvin Jung, Intel Steve Seall, Intel Len Foster, TI Roy Hunter, TI Sven Hahn, Infineon Harald Heinrich, Infineon Mikio Otani, ASI Makoto Yamamoto, Murata Junji Iwaskai, Renasas Seiichi Nakazawa, F-RIC

4 09/04/03 4 How Metrics were selected Almost every metric is a best in class or close to best in class Sources are: Individual IC maker and AMHS Supplier feedback. It is likely a factory will not achieve all the metrics outlined in the roadmap concurrently Individual business models will dictate which metric is more important than others It is likely certain metrics may be sacrificed (periodically) for attaining other metrics. The Factory Integration metrics are not really tied to the technology nodes as in other chapters such as Lithography However, nodes offer convenient interception points to bring in new capability, tools, software and other operational potential solutions Inclusion of each metric is dependent on consensus agreement We think the metrics provide a good summary of stretch goals for most companies in todays challenging environment.

5 09/04/03 5 Year of Production / / / Wafer Diameter300mm 450mm Transport E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E Storage E-MTTR (min) per SEMI E Transport MMBF (Mean move between failure) 5,0007,0008,00011,00015,00025,00035,00045,00055,00065,000 Storage MCBF (Mean cycle between failure) 22,00025,00030,00035,00045,00055,00060,00070,00080,000100,000 Peak System throughput (40K WSPM) Interbay Transport (moves/hour) Intrabay transport (moves/hour) – High Throughput Bay Transport (moves/hour) - unified system Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity) Average delivery time (minutes) Peak delivery time (minutes) Hot Lot Avg. delivery time (minutes) AMHS lead time (weeks)<12<11<10<9<8 AMHS install time (weeks)<16<14<12<10 Downtime to extend system capacity when previously planned (minutes) <90<60<30 <15 <0 Material Handling Technical Requirements

6 09/04/03 6 Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality MetricPotential Solution it is driving Wafer Transport System CapabilityDirect transport (or integrated interbay & intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating send- ahead, & hand-carry TPT targets Transport MMBF, Storage MCBF, Transport E-MTTR, Storage E-MTTR Storage and transport redundancy schemes; fault tolerant MCS; e-Diagnostics, EES, APC for AMHS Stocker cycle time per systemFundamental capability that permits the AMH system to successfully transport hot lots, gating send-aheads and hand-carries Stocker storage densityNew storage ideas which significantly reduce stocker footprint in the fab cleanroom (Under Track Storage, Conveyors) Downtime required for adding increased system capacity when previously planned New track and stocker extension designs that permit AMHS retrofit/expansion in a working factory with minimum downtime

7 09/04/ Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS System Throughput

8 09/04/ Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table) M. Jung Intel

9 09/04/03 9 Peak AMHS MPH – Sample Calculation System Throughput Requirements for transition to direct transport: Sample Calculation for 2005: 40K WSPM Process Steps = 25 layers X 29 steps/layer X 40k wspm (725 steps X 40k wspm) == 1593 process steps per hour (727 Hrs/month X 25 wafers /lot) Direct Transport Average MPH = ((%Tool to Tool moves x 1 Move)+((1-%Tool to Tool moves) x 2 Moves)) x Process Steps per Hour = ((10% x 1) + ((1 – 10%) x 2)) x 1593 = 3027 MPH Direct Transport Peak MPH = Average AMHS MPH x (1+2std dev) = 3027 x (1 + 2 x.20) = ~4240 MPH

10 09/04/ /2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) M. Jung Intel

11 09/04/ /2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) System Throughput Requirements for Intrabay (2004/2005): Sample Calculation: High throughput = 20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour Intrabay MPH 25 wafers/carrier =100 Moves / Hr Average =~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i.e., Avg+ 2xStd Dev)

12 09/04/ Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations) M. Jung Intel

13 09/04/03 13 Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions) M. Jung Intel

14 09/04/03 14 Separate Interbay & Intrabay 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L5 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

15 09/04/03 15 Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L1 -> S3 OR S1 -> L3 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

16 09/04/03 16 Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool L1 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> T3 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L1 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

17 09/04/03 17 Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool 1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> X1 -> L5 -> X2 -> L2 -> T3 3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

18 09/04/ Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS Reliability Metrics

19 09/04/03 19 AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day Inputs Outputs

20 09/04/ Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Hot Lot Delivery Time

21 09/04/03 21 AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Goal: Determine Regular AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time to meet Cycle Time. 1)Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below. 2)If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time Requirements. M. Jung Intel

22 09/04/03 22 AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions: 1)The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time. 2)The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time. 3)The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle Time. M. Jung Intel

23 09/04/ Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Delivery Time

24 09/04/03 24 Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1 TimestampDescriptionCommentExample Carrier is handed over to AMHS (e.g. at loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest) 09:13:12 Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or conveyor (real transport media) may be = 09:13:50 Hoist, vehicle or conveyor arriving at (final) destination 9:20:02 Carrier is handed over from AMHS to equipment (e.g. at loadport, I/O, …) may be = 11:05:07 Operator, Host or Equipment requesting carrier 11:04:11 D. Glueer AMD

25 09/04/03 25 Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2 DescriptionIntervalExample Travel Time Time carrier spends on vehicle, hoist or conveyor - 5 min Delivery Time Time required to transport a carrier from one production equipment to any other production equipment in the factory. - 7 min Lateness Time operator or equipment needs to wait for carrier, excluding minimum robot handling time at destination - - t Retrieve 2 min D. Glueer AMD

26 09/04/03 26 AMHS Updates for 2003 – ITRS & ISMT Metric Definitions Definitions: Transport move definition: A transport move is defined as a carrier move between loadports (stocker to stocker, stocker to production equipment, production equipment to stocker or production equipment to production equipment). Avg. Factory wide carrier delivery time: the time begins at the request for carrier movement from the host and ends when the carrier arrives at the load port of the receiving equipment. Maximum delivery time is considered the peak performance capability defined as the average plus two standard deviations. Handling time at destination t Retrieve : the (minimum) robot handling time required to move the carrier from the last storage location to the operator or the processing tool. Combined AMHS: delivery time and lateness are aggregated times, including optional changes of transportation media along the path to the destination. D. Glueer AMD

27 09/04/03 27 Strategic Goals for Delivery Time 5% p.a. Delivery Time decrease p.a. due to advances in AMHS technology 10% p.a. Lateness decrease due to Delivery Time, MES and dispatching improvements D. Glueer AMD

28 09/04/03 28 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Transport: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

29 09/04/03 29 AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System Intra and Inter Separate System Unified System (Dispatcher Base) Unified System (Scheduler Base) Transfer Throughput Transfer Time (Ave & Max) Punctuality (On-Time) Intra-Bay Inter-Bay Intra-Bay PushPull Re-Route Ave & Max Time Wafer Level Tracking Capacity Planning On-Time Delivery AMHS Key Indicator Equipment View Lot View H/W Efforts S/W Efforts Reduce WIP Schedule WIP J. Iwasaki Renasas

30 09/04/03 30 E-Mfg. The Next Generation Factory Concept Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories

31 09/04/03 31 Direct Tool to Tool Transport Is Needed by 2005 Objectives: Reduce product processing cycle time Increase productivity of process tools Reduced storage requirements (# of stocker) Reduced total movement requirements Priorities for Direct Delivery: Super Hot Lots (< 1% of WIP) & Other Hot Lots (~5% of WIP) Ensure bottleneck equipment is always busy Gating metro and send ahead. Other lot movements opportunistically Capability Needs Tools indicate that WIP is needed ahead of time Event driven dispatching Transition to a delivery time based AMHS Integrated factory scheduling capabilities ID Read at Tools Timing Research Required Development Underway Qualification/Pre-Production Fully Connected OHV OHV with Interbay Transport Partially Connected OHV With Conveyor Interbay Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept Options being considered

32 09/04/03 32 Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept Under Floor Full Direct Transport Central Stocker (Large Capacity) (High Throughput) Upper Ceiling OHT Branch Note: Current OHT systems cannot meet the longer-term throughput

33 09/04/03 33 Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept Conveyor Type Transport

34 09/04/03 34 Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept Interbay Conveyor Intrabay hoist Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor Tool Delivery Hoist A. Pyke Middlesex

35 09/04/03 35 Interbay vehicle Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station Interbay Vehicle (passive) Intrabay Hoist handoff station Interbay Vehicle Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation Interbay Vehicle Intrabay Hoist handoff station. Interbay Conveyor Intrabay RGV/AGV Material Handling: Alternate Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems A. Pyke Middlesex

36 09/04/03 36 Waffle slab Raised metal floor Stocker robot Section X-X Conveyor installed on waffle slab Transparent cover 600mm max 12ceiling 2 nd transport loop (if needed) Conveyor Maintenance: Via the top for Subway system Via the bottom for Overhead system Stocker X X Subway Transport system Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves) D. Pillai Intel Corp

37 09/04/03 37 Loadport with Safety cover and Elevator Stocker Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME XX Tool Pedestal envelope Mini Environment Tool body (side view) door opener zone Raised Metal Floor Waffle slab Conveyor on waffle slab 900mm 600mm PGV Dock flange Safety Cover D+D 1 = 450mm EB FOUP gripper Simple Gantry robot Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves) D. Pillai Intel Corp

38 09/04/03 38 EB Door opener Tool body Mini Environment D+D 1 = 450mm Gantry Rails Safety cover Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry) D. Pillai Intel Corp

39 09/04/03 39 Loadport 1 Empty loadport 2 Door opener flange Subway conveyor Gantry robot takes FOUP to Loadport and places on KC Tool front face Raised Metal Floor Waffle slab FOUP lifting Exclusion zones Outline of pedestal Gantry robot picks up FOUP from Conveyor and raised to the top 900mm Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Elevation View w/ Gantry) D. Pillai Intel Corp

40 09/04/03 40 D. Pillai Intel Corp Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Layout)

41 09/04/03 41 Factors that affect opportunity for direct transport - AMHS Interbay and Intrabay Track Layout Unified track supporting interbay and intrabay systems Crossovers to reduce AMHS cycle time – increase empty vehicle availability Bypass capability for traffic jams Parking area for empty vehicles Advantage: Increased possibility for direct delivery. Reduced AMHS cycle time Disadvantage: Might increase complexity for MCS to manage overall AMHS system complexity increases w/ integrated system w/ multiple tracks & add l complexity in layouts (bypasses, shortcuts) # of vehicles High: Traffic jams may occur Low: FOUP will wait to be picked up AMHS Controller/MCS Functionality Support MES and Dispatching systems Balance empty vehicles throughout the fab Currently in AMHS control, this is ok for today. In future, need further integrated system to provide add l MES data (tools, WIP) to proactively optimize management of empty vehicles (stage vehicles). Integrate third party buffers Redirect vehicle route/destinations while on route C. Han AMD

42 09/04/03 42 SEMI Standards Assessment Intrabay Side Hoist type vehicle interface: Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, pickup by top flange. Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). Handoff by E84 RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses KC pins or option fork lift flanges): Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, KC pins available for robot. Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). Handoff by E84 RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses conveyor rails): Pickup: Carrier located by KC pin lifter, conveyor rails available for robot. Drop-off: Carrier placed on KC pins, robot uses conveyor rails Handoff by E84 Interbay Side Most active vehicle type vehicles should work without issue: E85 Option A – Active Transport Delivers Carrier to Internal Stocker location –Internal Stocker location replaced by Conveyor Buffer. E85 Option B - Active Transport Delivers Carrier to External Stocker location –External Stocker location replaced by Conveyor Buffer. Passive Vehicle Interface will require secondary active component: Dedicated pick and place unit or robot. Software IBSEM will work as-is for Interbay, Intrabay and Hybrid systems. E84 good handoff protocol for all low level handoffs. Also, IBSEM possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but may be overkill. STKSEM also possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but extreme overkill. Minor modifications in IBSEM (E82) may allow easier vehicle-vehicle handoff, through intermediate device. Could be investigated. Further work needed. A. Pyke Middlesex

43 09/04/03 43 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Tool-to-Tool Delivery 3 rd Party Loadport / Buffer. C. Han AMD

44 09/04/03 44 Key Factors - # of LP (FOUP Buffers) Three loadports (for normal process tool) can increase the direct tool-to-tool delivery possibility LP #1: Processing LP #2: Non-production wafer FOUP for Send Ahead or Test LP #3: To be processed Advantage Can deliver at any time (unless next FOUP to be processed is already on the non-processing LP) Tool dedicated Non-production FOUP reside on the process tool (instead of delivery back and forth from stocker) R educed # of delivery cycles Disadvantage Tools usually have only two load ports, this approach requires an additional LP Tools may not support installation of additional LP due to their design Third party buffer is possible solution instead of additional LP Need to have internal transfer between buffer and LPs AMHS(OHT) to deliver FOUP to buffer C. Han AMD

45 09/04/03 45 Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non- Production Wafer FOUP for two LP Non-production wafer (i.e. Send Ahead and test) FOUP resides on process tool only for the time required Transfer from stocker to process tool (not required for the 3 LP scenario) Transfer from process tool to metrology tool Transfer from metrology tool to sorter for Send Ahead merge (may not be required for 3 LP scenario) Transfer from sorter to Stocker (in 3 LP case, transfer to process tool) Advantage Can be done with two LP in the process tool Disadvantage Next lot can not be delivered until non-production wafers processed, and FOUP removed from the tool Increase deliveries C. Han AMD

46 09/04/03 46 Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non- Production Wafer FOUP Non-Production Wafers Production Wafers Time Three LP Two LP LP #1 LP #2 LP #3 LP #1 LP #2 Next lot can be delivered at any time Non-production FOUP can be delivered back to LP #2 at any time Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker C. Han AMD

47 09/04/03 47 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Integrated Flow and Control: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

48 09/04/03 48 Material Handling Potential Solutions Backup Section Content Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control Assumptions Carrier Level Solution with Concept Drawing Type 1: Sorter and Metrology Equipment Integration with Stockers Wafer level Solutions with Concept Drawings Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs (Equipment Front-end Modules) Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar)

49 09/04/03 49 Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control - See concept diagrams on following pages Assumptions: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control Type 1: Sorter and Metrology with Stockers Compatible with existing standard carrier Must be collaboration between sorter, metrology and AMHS suppliers to integrate stockers with other equipment Hardware integration primarily owned by stocker supplier Equipment integration work primarily controls interface Requires a carrier 180º rotation during hand-off from stocker robot to tool load port(s) Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems may require new sorting equipment Contamination control must be addressed by way of a tunnel or mini-environment expansion Bypass required for individual equipment downtimes to prevent cluster shutdown Requires standardized EFEM interfaces (at the interface between the tunnel and EFEM) are recommended for ease of wafer transport "tunnel" integration.

50 09/04/03 50 Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control (continued) Assumptions (continued): Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM Transition from carrier handling to single wafer handling systems will require new sorting equipment There must be collaboration between equipment suppliers for EFEMs development Requires new standard physical interface between process/metrology equipment and EFEMs High throughput robot required – Concern about material handling robot downtime impact –Preventative maintenance and unscheduled downtime impact are not clear Required equipment to load port matching and lot integrity are key challenges Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar) Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems will require ultra high speed wafer handling equipment –Lot integrity a key issue Equipment interface robot required to replace current EFEMs wafer handling robot Targeted for 450mm transition All configurations above are valid, however it is important to select appropriate solution for each factory situation

51 09/04/03 51 Type 1: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control - Sorter and Metrology with Stockers End View Sorter Metro Tools OHT Loop Stocker Stocker robot loads Sorters and Metro equipment Loadports Metro Process Tools Stockers OHT Loop Sorter Metro Tools Stocker robot interfaces directly with Sorters and Metro equip Potential Solutions Require: Standardized Intrabay Operation Integrated Software When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway in 2002 Qualification/Production by 2003 (Complete for Sorter)

52 09/04/03 52 Potential Solutions Require: I/F Standard (H/W, S/W) Standardized EFEM Software Integrated Wafer level APC Standardized Intrabay Operation Type 2-1 Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Connected EFEM When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by TBD Development Underway by TBD Qualification/Production by TBD Wafer Staging Carrier Staging Equipment Supplier A Equipment Supplier B Equipment Supplier C Conceptual Only

53 09/04/03 53 Potential Solutions Require: System controller of Equipment Group Wafer Dispatcher Module structure of equipment Standardized I/F Standardized Width Modular Process Steps High Speed Wafer Transfer Standardized Intrabay Operation Type 2-2 Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Expanded EFEM When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by TBD Development Underway by TBD Qualification/Production by TBD Conceptual Only Standard Tool Widths

54 09/04/03 54 Potential Solutions Require: Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer Target M/C to M/C 7sec. Wafer Level Dispatching Type 2-3: Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar) When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by 2007 Development Underway by 2010 Qualification/Production by 2013 Target 450mm Single Chamber Process Tool Stocker Metrology Tool Conceptual Only Single Wafer Transport Multi-Wafer Carrier Level Transport

55 09/04/03 55 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Delivery Time: Under Track Storage

56 09/04/03 56 UTS Requirements When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway by 2003 Qualification/Production by 2004 Potential Solutions Require: Capable of OHT pick / place Handoff by E84 (optional) Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issues WIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTS Alignment with kinematic pins (optional) Carrier identification capabilities (optional) Ability to detect FOUP placement/presence and/or misplacement Potential Benefits: Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools Better support of quick-turn processes Hot lot handling Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot) Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution T. Mariano Brooks

57 09/04/03 57 Potential UTS Solutions – Passive Shelf T. Mariano Brooks

58 09/04/03 58 Potential UTS Solutions – Re-circulating Buffer T. Mariano Brooks

59 09/04/03 59 Potential UTS Solutions – Linear Buffer T. Mariano Brooks

60 09/04/03 60 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Inert Gas Purging of Foups

61 09/04/03 61 End View OHT Loop Stocker Stocker robot loads to/from Purge & Non-Purge FOUP storage nests Potential Solutions Require: Inert Gas Injection Purge Nests in Wafer Stockers Gas Plumbing with High Flow Initial Purge & Low Sustaining Flow Rates Material & Stocker Control Systems to Support Partial Population of Purge Nests in Stockers User Consensus and/or Industry Hardware Standards Needed for FOUP / Purge Port Interoperability (E47.1 update – Locations on Foup Define interface in E47.1) When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway in 2003 (65nm / 90nm) Qualification/Production starting 2004 FOUP Input FOUP Output FOUPs being Purged FOUP Input FOUP Out put Need: Option for Improvement in Wafer FOUP Level Environmental Conditioning along with Compliance to Industry Safety Standards FOUP Nest Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports Potential Solutions – Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs L. Foster TI

62 09/04/03 62 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints

63 09/04/03 63 Facility Cross Linkage Issues Area A Area B Protocol Change Traverse Drivers: Slurry (Polish) Copper Other hazardous materials Cleanliness requirements Shipping & receiving... D. Glueer AMD

64 09/04/03 64 Facility Cross Linkage Approaches Protocol Change: Vehicle change: Transferring a carrier from one AMHS vehicle to another vehicle requiring robotic handlers and local buffers. Potential Solutions: See presentation Direct Transport material for option to Transfer between transport devices. FOUP change: - Potential Solutions A) Via Sorter: Transferring wafer by wafer B) Via Flipper: Transferring content as a whole, e.g. via comb 1) Integrated: Transfer device integrated in Stocker 2) External: Hoist delivering carrier to Transfer Device Traverse: - Potential Solutions through tunnels on dedicated vehicles using dedicated tracks and/or routes D. Glueer AMD

65 09/04/03 65 Facilitity Cross Linkage Considerations Directions: Unidirectional: Best separation Bi-directional: Lower COO (1 for 2, re-use of Empties) Multi-usage: E.g. from area A one transfer device both to B and to C + saving footprint - complex control structure, higher impact of down-events Availability of (appropriate) Empties: Empty vehicles / empty FOUPs Washing cycles Protocol restrictions esp. for multi-usage transfers Local buffer capacity of transfer device Facilities: Air pressure Fire protection D. Glueer AMD

66 09/04/03 66 Facility Cross Linkage Metrics Throughput Cycle Time Availability Amount of Transfers/Layer Amount of Mask Layer Amount of Transfers due to other reasons WSPM Wafers / Carrier Bi-directionalUnidirectional =+ Sample: WSPM ÷ 25 Wafers/FOUP ( ) = 265 Transfers per Hour = 2 Average Carrier Delivery Time + Transfer Time Sample: 2 8 Minutes + 5 Minutes = 21 Minutes D. Glueer AMD

67 09/04/03 67 Facility Cross Linkage Conclusions Many ways to address Facility Cross Linkage issues Selection process is site-specific and needs to be made in close cooperation with CFM department High drawback to MES and AMHS control structure Transfer devices may turn out to be bottleneck, esp. when multi-usage Handling Empties increases AMHS duties significantly High impact to AMHS delivery times May lead to impact of whole wafer processing cycle time Usually trade-off between cleanliness concerns vs. AMHS performance Could be reduced by appropriate dispatching and scheduling Just in Time delivery of FOUPs Redundancy needs to be build-in D. Glueer AMD

68 09/04/03 68 Potential Research Topics – Vibration Requirements Proposed Research TitleCharacterization of Acceptable Vibration and Acceleration Limits on Wafers BackgroundCurrent industry specs on vibration/acceleration applied to wafers by AMHS and not supported by data on potential damage to wafers ProposalNeed to analyze potential negative effects (mechanical damage, defects, yield loss) to wafers induced by different levels or types of vibration during automated handling. Project ScenarioData Characterization threshold for acceptable vibration/acceleration would allow for speed and cycle time of AMHS products to be improved without inducing WIP Jeopardy. DeliverablesRecommended specifications for vibration applied to wafers by AMHS and supporting data Support RequiredTools for characterization, wafer vibration, Skills in mechanical engineering, materials, process, yield BenefitCurrent vibration limits are constraining the AMHS cycle time (stockers, vehicles). New vibration limits have the potential to increase system throughput. Simulation results w/ new stocker and vehicle cycle time can be used to show system throughput benefits.

69 09/04/03 69 Potential Research Topics FOUP Cleanliness Methodology for measuring cleanliness of FOUPs (other than liquid particle counts). Need repeatable technique for characterization of cleaning FOUPS. Benefit – Better cleaning system, reduced cleaning Unified Transport System Validation Demonstrate, through simulation, a unified transport system capable of achieving system throughput requirements in requirements table. Ex. Empty vehicle management in a unified system. Need to demonstrate a peak system for 40K WSPM factory with unified transport system (vehicle based). Provide distribution strategy / rules that can be used by AMHS vendors. Benefit – Validate feasibility of unified transport system in a fully loaded fab. FOUP Purging What are requirements for FOUP purging?


Download ppt "09/04/03 1 ITRS 2003 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google